Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

It also says.... "What they have not yet publicly revealed is that under a confidentiality agreement between the Met Office and the UK's Natural Environment Research Council, a portion of the UK's own temperature measurements is only made available to "bona fide academic researchers working on agreed NERC-endorsed scientific programmes".

 

The Met Office claim they're keeping the data secret so they can sell it for the benefit of the tax-payer. A likely tale

 

What evidence do you have for doubting them?

[Br8inend]

The science of climate will always be guess work. Its so complex that no computer could ever hope to reflect the climate of the future.

Other reasons for warming exist such as the thinning of ozone layer, the energy emmited by microwave radiation i.e.Mobile Phones , the thousand year cycles of currents in the oceans and cleaner skys in europe and north america letting more sunlight through. The latter is what I go for. Manufacturing moving to china and clean air acts has cleared our air and I feel this with the thinning of the ozone layer is responsible for the temperature data. So in my opinion burning fossil fuels will actually make the temperature fall and seen as china has overtook the usa as the worlds largest polluter we are in for a shock.

Its gonna get cold and when it does where will the scientists be then?

These leaked emails may be a way for the scientific community to wriggle their way out of being wrong big time about man made global warming.

[Cyclone]

Does the ozone layer have any effect on the temperature of the planet? It absorbs UV, so whether it's absorbed or not the energy is still input into the system.

Mobile phone usage as a specific thing is irrelevent. You'd look more sensible looking at the total amount of energy we release from stored sources, ie combustion or nuclear.

I suspect that a quick analysis would show it to be a fraction of a percent of the total incident energy from the sun.

[Cyclone]

I have seen no evidence of wholesale manipulation of data. And even if there was it just discredits one bit of research not all the other research from other establishments that supports the same human influenced rise in temperature. CRU is just one of many research establishments that have come to the same conclusion.

 

There is no evidence they took any steps to stop papers being published. Your view of the emails has come from hysterical bloggers with an agenda, not an impartial assessment of their evidence.

 

and your views on the analysis code seems to have come from wilful ignorance.

[Greybeard]

What evidence do you have for doubting them?

 

Evidence ? I'm sorry but my evidence is a commercial secret. In fact some of it was deleted - it didn't occur to me that somebody might want to check it.

[Cyclone]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/

 

On Tuesday, Illarionov released the following report (pdf in Russian), comparing the newly-released HadCRUT data to records from the Russian meteorological service, which supplied the parts of HadCRUT covering Russia.

 

According to Russian newpaper Kommersant, as relayed via the RIA Novosti news wire, Illarionov says that the HadCRUT dataset doesn't include the records from many of Russia's meteorological stations. He adds that the missing records, if they had been included by the British climate scientists, would have significantly reduced the amount of warming shown for Russia by the HadCRUT database.

 

As Russia accounts for 12.5 per cent of the world's land mass, according to Illarionov the use of complete Russian records would significantly reduce the figures on global warming in recent times.

 

Climatologists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) had long been criticised for refusing to reveal the raw data on which their global-warming figures and graphs were based.

 

...

 

The HadCRUT dataset is very important in the climate change debate. It was used by the UN in determining that exceptional global warming is taking place, and that this is caused by human activity - primarily thought to be greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2.

 

 

 

and on the US data sets which agree with the CRU data

one run by NASA and one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - agree with it. However it's perhaps worth noting that the NASA database is under the control of Dr James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute in New York. Hansen is the world high priest of human-caused global warming, a man whose personal beliefs are well-known: he has travelled to the UK for the purpose of joining protests against new power plants

[Phanerothyme]

Carbon dioxide is 0.003 of the earths atmosphere , doubling it can not account for the predicted rise of temperature.

Global warming is the elites way of taking over the world and just like all the wars the elite have led us into , its all bogus. Wake up..

 

The elites took over the world hundreds of years ago, with the birth of international banking and money cartels. Something tells me you're still asleep, nay comatose.

 

Did you understand the basic idea of the gross energy budget? More energy is being pumped into the climate. This does not equal hotter weather, nothing so simplistic. It entails less stable weather patterns and quite possibly a breakdown of stable weather patterns altogether, beyond coriolis mediated effects on the climate.

 

Even if the idea of anthropogenic climate change is plausible then we need to be doing something about it, because the consequences we risk are so much worse if we do nothing, which is our default position.

 

Atmospheric CO2 may be a small percentage of the overall volume,but CFCs were an even smaller amount, and they unquestionably had a serious effect.

 

It doesn't need to be a lot, or a certain amount; it is the rate of change that can overpower the natural homeostatic systems that keep the atmosphere, and the biosphere in equilibrium.

[JIbbo]

Filtering Soot as you can see from my link is the subject of ongoing research and developments and is far from cheap and simple.

 

It doesn't follow that 50% in the Himalayas means 50% everywhere. The Claim is that it contributes 25%.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon#Black_carbons_effect_on_Arctic_ice_and_Himalayan_glaciers

 

Errr my Link said otherwise, work is going on to tackle global warming on all fronts.

 

Wildcat.

 

all the people in your office are currently exhaling CO2 ?

 

what are you going to do about it ?

[BobbyDazzler]

The Earth has managed fine for millions of years despite all that nature can throw at it, volcanoes, seismic shifts etc. Any man made pollution is a drop in the ocean compared to that. It's all a con and it usually boils down to somebody making money out of it.

[Cyclone]

The elites took over the world hundreds of years ago, with the birth of international banking and money cartels. Something tells me you're still asleep, nay comatose.

 

Did you understand the basic idea of the gross energy budget? More energy is being pumped into the climate. This does not equal hotter weather, nothing so simplistic. It entails less stable weather patterns and quite possibly a breakdown of stable weather patterns altogether, beyond coriolis mediated effects on the climate.

 

Even if the idea of anthropogenic climate change is plausible then we need to be doing something about it, because the consequences we risk are so much worse if we do nothing, which is our default position.

 

Atmospheric CO2 may be a small percentage of the overall volume,but CFCs were an even smaller amount, and they unquestionably had a serious effect.

 

It doesn't need to be a lot, or a certain amount; it is the rate of change that can overpower the natural homeostatic systems that keep the atmosphere, and the biosphere in equilibrium.

 

CO2 levels have been significantly higher in the past without destroying the weather patterns or the climate.

The system appears to be more robust than CO2 scaremongers would have you believe. It's also worth pointing out that the high CO2 levels did not correlate with high temperatures.

There've also been periods in history with higher average temperatures, again with no evidence of the collapse of stable weather systems.